Prop. 92 would benefit community colleges and their students

CAMPAIGN 2008

Tanya Schevitz, Chronicle Staff Writer

Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Proposition 92, which would guarantee about $900 million in additional state spending on schools over the next three years, will be decided by voters next month as lawmakers in Sacramento grapple with a huge budget deficit that could mean deep cuts in education.

The proposition is sponsored by a coalition led by the Community College League of California, which gathered about 1 million voter signatures to qualify the initiative for the Feb. 5 ballot. The goal is to increase funding to community colleges and lower student fees beginning in the next school year.

"It is a bad year to ask for money," said Barbara O'Connor, a professor of political communication at Cal State Sacramento, referring to the state's looming $14.5 billion budget deficit. "Voters will be thinking about that when they vote because, by then, the consequences of the deficit and the housing crisis will be overwhelming. They will be hearing nothing else."

Andrew Acosta, a spokesman for the Yes on Prop. 92 campaign, said he discounts concerns that the measure can't pass during bleak fiscal times.

"At the end of the day, I hope voters will hear what we are trying to say, that we are trying to lower fees and stabilize funding," Acosta said.

Supporters began planning the initiative three years ago after community colleges suffered big cuts to help balance an earlier state budget, said Scott Lay, who heads the Community College League of California, a nonprofit association of the state's 72 community college districts.

The measure, which needs a simple majority vote to pass, would increase the guaranteed funding for community colleges by altering the complex formula that now guides state allocations to public schools.

Under that formula approved by voters in 1988, the state must allocate about 40 percent of its general fund to the K-12 schools and community colleges. The allocations are based on a formula that calculates the growth in K-12 attendance and growth in the per capita personal income, according to the state legislative analyst.

But enrollment in the state's K-12 schools is relatively flat right now, while the community college population is growing. So Prop. 92 would change the formula to increase the funding for community colleges based on the population growth of college-age residents.

"We looked ahead and we saw a real troubling situation ... because of a dwindling K-12 population and a 3 percent increase in community college enrollment," Lay said.

If Prop. 92 passes, the legislative analyst calculates, the state will allocate an additional $300 million per year for K-12 schools and community colleges over the next three years. The calculation estimates that about half of the new money would go to the K-12 schools during the first two years. But in the third year, almost all the money would go to the community colleges. It's not clear what would happen in the fourth year.

Prop. 92 is silent on where the added money would come from, meaning the general fund would probably be tapped. But the general fund is already facing a huge deficit - projected to be $14.5 billion over the next 18 months. As a result, the governor and state lawmakers are considering a host of proposals to increase revenue and/or reduce spending.

While supporters say the proposition will provide stable funding for community colleges, critics say the initiative would lock in a huge new spending commitment with no way to pay for it.

And critics say there would be no restrictions on how the Prop. 92 money could be spent.

"It doesn't increase course offerings or services. There is no accountability, no way to know how the money will be spent," said Theresa Wheeler, campaign manager for the No on 92 campaign. "With or without the state budget crisis, Proposition 92 is a bad idea."

But Lay said the money would go to support a growing community college enrollment. Without the infusion of money, he said, the state's 109 community colleges probably would have to turn away more than 100,000 students otherwise expected to enroll.

Among other organizational changes, Prop. 92 would also lock the community college governing structure into the state Constitution. That would create a roadblock for state leaders who have at times proposed eliminating the state community college chancellor, as well as the local community college governing boards.

The state's 2.5 million community college students would benefit from the proposition's promise to lower fees next fall to $15 a unit - a reduction of $5 per unit. A full-time student would save about $150 a year. It would also limit future fee increases.

Thirty percent of the membership of the California Federation of Teachers work in community colleges, compared with only about 2 percent for the California Teachers Association. The California Federation of Teachers helped to develop the proposition.

The California Teachers Association said it believes Prop. 92 might end up siphoning money away from the public schools and state universities.

The California Teachers Association has contributed most of the $800,000 raised by the No on 92 forces.

The supporters have raised more than $4 million to qualify and campaign for the measure, with $655,000 from the California Federation of Teachers and several hundred thousand dollars from the American Federation of Teachers.

At a glance

What: Proposition 92

What it would do: The initiative would change the state's formula for allocating tax money to public schools and community colleges while guaranteeing about $300 million more annually in school funding for at least three years. It would also lower fees paid by community college students and limit future increases. In addition, it would expand the governing structure of the state's huge community college system and make it part of the state Constitution.

Who is for it: Supporters include the nonprofit Community College League of California and the California Federation of Teachers, among others.

Who is against it: Opponents include the California Teachers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the League of Women Voters of California, among others.